A flawed test, in a flawed system, run by flawed people.
Just because PCR can make a whole lot of something out of a tiny bit of something doesn’t mean you know what that something is.
One of the ten FB posts that the medical council thought was grounds for suspension was this one:
Interesting? I thought that was one of the better memes of the time.
They never explained to me why this sticker required all the “immediate action powers for the public protection” even in the slightest. So I will have to guess, but maybe they thought it called into question the validity of the PCR test?
The second FB post that was flagged was more blunt:
I wrote this post last July 2021 after reading the CDC memo that for diagnosis of covid in the vaxxed they were not accepting specimens with PCR cycle thresholds above 28 amplifications because above this they rarely were able to grow virus and fully sequence it.
If you can’t sequence it, you can’t say you have identified anything really.
Just because PCR can make a whole lot of something out of a tiny bit of something doesn’t mean you know what that something is.
The choice of the primers are crucial.
Trying to identify a 30,000 nucleotide RNA virus with say 3 primers of 10 nucleotides each is like trying to identify one book in a library of many with 3 short phrases of a few words each:
For starters, you had better pick phrases that are in the book, and ideally ones that exist only in this one book (positive reference control). You would want them to be spread out and not all on the same page or chapter. You would look for a phrase in common use that is not present in the target book, but in any event, something that’s not in the book would be very helpful. (it’s your negative control).
Negative controls are required to assess off-target amplification.
What happens when you pick phrases that exist in not only the book you’re looking for, but many others besides. (false positives).
Now, being able to compare the full text of the book you are searching for, rather than just 3 very short phrases to the text of rest of the books in this hypothetical library is akin to having the fully sequenced the RNA of the test sample. This is the gold standard.
If your choice of primer (phrase) is poor, the sensitivity and specificity of the test results will be poor. If your control samples are impure, this will definitely impact on the usefulness of the test. If they don’t reliably include specimens that actually include the RNA of the virus you are looking for, or just as bewildering, if the negative control which is definitely meant to be free of the RNA being searched for actually sometimes contains the RNA you search for: you have entered clown world.
This is what the pathologist Dr Sin Hang Lee found:
There is much more to say about this, let’s call this part 1.
********************************************************************************************************
To support my work, buy me a coffee?
buymeacoffee.com/LkRNpg8ydW
This is a QR code that supports freedom:
